Mind the Gap!

In Wherefore the Gender Gap, I noted irony in the fact that women greatly prefer Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders given Hillary Clinton’s initial reaction to deceptively edited video purporting to show Planned Parenthood conspiring to sell fetal parts. Clinton called the dishonest video “disturbing” and refused to rule out government hearings into Planned Parenthood’s practices. To her credit, she subsequently straightened course with her own video defending the heroic and beloved non-profit. Bernie Sanders also reacted problematically, but not as problematically, to the right-wing agitprop.

The percentage of Democratic women who support Clinton’s candidacy is 57% greater than the percentage of Democratic men in her camp, even though women are more likely to support choice and consider it a more important political issue than men do. Still Clinton is reliably pro-choice despite her Planned Parenthood wobble. Accordingly, women’s overwhelming preference for Clinton wouldn’t be so surprising if she weren’t demonstrably worse than Sanders in a number of other areas that women also rate as particularly important.

Military Intervention in the Middle East

According to Gallup, men almost invariably favor military intervention much more than women do. This was the case prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Yet as University of San Francisco Professor Stephen Zunes points out, Hillary Clinton is the only one of the five announced Democratic candidates who supported the war.

Four years after we deposed Saddam Hussein, a disproportionate number of women viewed the war as a mistake and favored a timetable for withdrawal. But Clinton did not turn against the war until at the very earliest 2008, years after Bush had acknowledged that pre-war Iraq had neither WMDs nor a viable nuclear weapons program and was not involved in 9/11. By then, most Americans had concluded Operation Iraqi Liberation Freedom was a mistake and Clinton knew she could not defend the war itself while running against Barack Obama in 2008. Still Clinton did not, or could not, admit error until 2014.

As Secretary of State, Clinton’s did fine and difficult work cajoling Iran into negotiations on its nuclear capabilities. But, she positions herself not just to the right of Sanders, respecting an expanded American military presence in Syria, but even of President Obama. Likewise, she has backed away from any criticism of Israel’s invasion and heavy-handed occupation of Gaza.

In contrast to Clinton, Bernie Sanders opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. Last year, he voted against President Obama’s request for funds to help train and arm Syrian rebels. Some allege that Sanders is too pro-Israel and he was incorrectly called an Israeli citizen by NPR host Diane Rehm. But unlike Clinton, he has made clear his opposition to Israel’s war on Gaza and settlements on Palestinian land.

Environmental Policy

Gender studies scholars have concluded that women exhibit a “greater willingness to acknowledge ecological problems and risks and to engage in actions that are beneficial for the environment.” In a Pew Research poll conducted last year, 59% of women, and only 47% of men, said the environment was very important to them. Yet the overwhelming choice of Democratic women is markedly less of an environmental champion than her top rival.

The scientific community has concluded that climate change due to anthropogenic global warming may be the greatest environmental threat humans have ever faced. Unlike nearly every announced Republican Presidential candidate, Clinton does not deny this essential reality and supports a very significant investment in solar energy which unfortunately will require Congressional approval. But she refuses to state her position on either the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) or the Keystone XL pipeline; both of which the President can stop without Congress and each of which would result in significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental threats.

Clinton denies participating in the drafting of the TPP but, while she was Secretary of State, the Department was deeply involved in this process. It would therefore seem more probable than not that President Hillary Clinton would embrace this “free trade” pact. Clinton’s silence on Keystone is even more maddening. While Secretary of State, she said she would be “inclined” to approve it. Last month, when asked point blank at a Town Hall for her position, she paused and then after a lengthy exposition said that she will give an answer “when I become President.”

In a refreshing contrast to the tight-lipped uncommunicative Clinton, Bernie Sanders has stated early and often that he opposes TPP and Keystone and has voted against both. Bottomline: Bernie Sanders is a more reliable, credible, and plain-spoken advocate for a clean green energy future.

Economic Justice

Besides reproductive freedom, income inequality is the issue with the largest gender gap according to the Pew poll cited earlier. A year ago, 64% of women said income inequality is a very serious issue while 49% of men agreed. In perhaps no other area is the contrast between Sanders and Clinton more apparent.

In 2000, while her husband was still President, Clinton supported making China’s most favored nation status permanent in 2001. Sanders opposed this step. Other than the Reagan tax cuts for top earners, arguably no other political decision over the past fifty years has led to greater income inequality.

Clinton has a mixed record on so-called “free” trade while Sanders has consistently opposed these job-killing bills. As mentioned earlier, Clinton refuses to say whether she supports the TPP, aka “NAFTA on steroids”, which will increase wealth disparities, while Sanders opposes it. Sanders has joined Elizabeth Warren in calling for the break-up of consolidated banks and a new Glass-Steagall Act while Clinton opposes a return to community and intra-state commercial banking.

When it comes to tax policy, Clinton is far more generous to the wealthy than Sanders. During the 2008 campaign, she opposed raising the capital gains rate above 20%. Since then she has recalibrated her position and now claims to be amenable to a top short-term capital gains tax of 39.6% with long-term gains taxed at the aforementioned 20%. Regarding top marginal federal income tax rates, Clinton apparently favors the current level of 39.6% which was also in effect when Bill was in office.

Sanders supports raising the top marginal income tax rate above 50% and would also raise capital gains tax rates significantly. These two actions would greatly reduce after-tax income and wealth disparities.

One good way to gauge the difference between the two candidates on economic justice is to consider their supporters. In this election cycle, Clinton is raising many millions from Clinton foundation donors and beneficiaries, hedge fund and private equity managers, and entertainment industry moguls. Sanders refuses to accept super PAC funds and supports a constitutional amendment specifying that corporations have no First Amendment right to influence elections with “speech” or cash. In the immediate aftermath of his announcement that he was running for President, Sanders raised $1.5 million from thousands of individuals donating about $43 on average.

Death Penalty

Historically, men have been more likely than women to support the death penalty. Like many women, Bernie Sanders opposes it. As appears to be her wont when asked about controversial issues, Clinton has tended to hedge and equivocate respecting execution. Still, she has never renounced the “vague support” of the ultimate penalty she enunciated in 2001 and 2008. Nor has she distanced herself from her husband’s abysmal record in this area when he was Governor of Arkansas.

Gay Marriage

In 2012, per Gallup, 56% of women but only 42% of men backed marriage equality. Since the early 1970s, Bernie Sanders is on record in favor of “equality”. In 1996, Sanders voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) which President Bill Clinton signed into law. As late as 2003, Hillary Clinton said she too would have signed the law barring federal recognition of gay marriages if she were President. Not until 2013, when most women had already “evolved” did Clinton finally agree that gay marriage should be deemed a human right.

Conclusion

Although Hillary Clinton is weaker than her nearest opponent on virtually every issue that women say is important to them, Democratic women disproportionately support her. As primary season approaches and her positions became clearer to voters, perhaps the gender gap will close. If it does not and Hillary Clinton prevails against Bernie Sanders, Democratic women are not likely to see their issues championed in the run-up to the November 2016 general election. If Clinton rides the support of her base to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Democratic women can expect to be sorely disappointed.

4 Responses to Mind the Gap!

You spend a lot of space examining the issues, Hal. But in the final analysis, none of them matter. I strongly suspect that women support Hillary over Bernie because she is a woman. And many Americans, especially of the female persuasion, eagerly want to see a woman as president. The nuances of the issues, in my opinion, are irrelevant here.

Arlen – I hope you are wrong but fear you are right. Why do you think so many apparently progressive women are so besotted with the idea of a woman President that they ignore her pro-corporatist policies and questionable character? There has never been a Jewish President but I wouldn’t vote for Chuck Schumer in a thousand years if he were running against Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown.

Hal, If American politics were only about issues Bernie would be one of the favorites. In reality political campaigns, and other forms of advertising, are more about style than substance.People like you and me, who analyze the issues, are not typical American voters. The typical voter is swayed by charm, looks, and charisma, and who they would want to have a beer (or a latte) with. I wish it were’t that way, but sadly it is.

Beginning ~10yrs ago, Moscow-based Kaspersky Labs tried2 damage rival competitor’s reputations by tricking their programs into classifying benign files as malicious. Per 2 former employees, some such attacks were ordered by

(Wednesday, Dec 13. 2017 12:50 AM)

KL’s co-founder Eugene Kaspersky, in part 2retaliate against rivals who he felt were aping his software rather than dev their own. KL’s engineers would take files like common critical drivers & inject bad code into them so they appeared infected. KL would then upload the doctored files anonymously2 VirusTotal flagging them as infected. Other AV engineers would then visit VT & create signatures that would flag all sim files. This often caused their AV programs 2quarantine perfectly good drivers from ppl’s computers causing system problems. http://goo.gl/fssZ1B

I guess it all boils down2 what 1 believes gives meaning to mankind’s life. To me, man will only have significance if he survives the Darwinian nature of the universe in the long term. In only a billion yrs, r sun will have brightened

(Tuesday, Dec 12. 2017 04:59 AM)

enough2 boil the oceans. If man is 2survive, it will only be cuz of his unique intelligence & ability2 fav reshape his enviro. There is nothing else particularly special about man, espec not his ability 2practice cut-throat Darwinistic behaviors. If the nat Darwinian path led2 immortal life, we would see evidence of an entire universe teaming w/life that has survived the ages. We don’t. So man must uniquely fight against the natural Darwinian order & instead build the strongest poss united society in which all individuals & earth’s life forms thrive.

4 Jeff – 1st of all u wrote that I think gov’t should buy everything 4 everybody. Obviously, that’s false. Now u write that I want gov’t 2 buy baseball tix 4 poor kids. I don’t oppose such legislation but my preference is that the City of Baltimore should condition use of its city by O’s upon an agreement by team 2 distribute free or low-cost tix to poor Baltimoreans.

For Hal – You do think the government should buy tickets to baseball games for the less fortunate. What’s the difference between that and a voucher to a restaurant? The point stands. You think the government has the authority to spend someone else’s money on whatever you deem appropriate.

For jeff linder – not everything. I don’t think the gov’t should provide people with yachts or vouchers to eat at restaurants & not at the expensive others since I would b subject 2 same taxes that I support. But it’s easier 2 attack arguments I don’t make.

The EIC has been much abused. Ppl that dont even work r propositioned by dishonest tax preparers who promise ppl they will get a tax refund if they just pay a fee. Self-Emp_Income is declared & the EIC is requested. By law, IRS pays

(Sunday, Dec 10. 2017 06:56 PM)

refunds quick, & only later it discovers the person never paid SEI taxes. The tax preparer & their fee r long gone; the person now owes IRS back the EIC. Woe 2the person that actually recvd need-based benefits (SSI or welfare) during the tax yr, as IRS records now show they had SEI they didnt declare. So welfare/SSI also want their money back, & usually such persons already at poverty level. This is the type of issue I tried 2expain2 Hal re accurate gas tax refunds. Although computerization slowly making this better, such programs rife w/fraud & bureaucratic messes.

Jeff isnt proposing a true GMI. The “earned income tax credit” he mentions already exists – IF u have low-pay job, then u may get a tax rebate. This also much like current Repub proposals 2req work 2get Medicaid. Prob socially

(Sunday, Dec 10. 2017 02:32 PM)

insulated ppl dont recog is there r many that have educational/mental/physical/economic-based issues such that they cant get/hold a job in today’s economy where workers compete w/3rd world. Sometimes ppl like Jeff will have eyes opened if something really bad happens in their lives. Gen working population is always so surprised how few services there really r when it is they that need help – but even then they often hang on2 dogma: Everybody but them (espec those dark “foreigners”) r cheaters/liars & that’s why there is nothing avail 4them when they need it.

Tweeden’s colleague John Phillips /groomed/ her 2release pic; Tweeden had no idea Phillips & Stone were hard right buddies. Arnold says Sean Hannity had wanted the photo since 2007 but she refused him & that Tweeden never wanted Franken fired. Arnold posted email purportedly showing Stone trying2 whip up story2 gossip columnists even b4 Tweeden story aired, though a pseudonym Russian nm was used & Tom has no proof email was Stone’s doing. DC & US will be vacant if we all r held 2such high stds over entire lifetime. We need Al in the Senate. http://goo.gl/oLWfA3

For halginsberg – The government spends about $1T in means tested programs. That’s about $3K per person. For illustration only:. GMI-Earned Income=Refund. That way there is no cost in benefits to working.

For halginsberg – That’s funny Hal. You think it’s someone else’s duty to spend money on things you think are important. I think you should spend your money on what you think is important. Re GMI it’s a workable solution as a replacement for all welfare programs.

For halginsberg – It’s not the federal government’s business to ensure all citizens have health care, a roof over their heads and a warm place to sleep Hal. If you know someone like in dire need why aren’t you helping them?
And yes, I support a guaranteed income.

For jeff linder – I asked u earlier how u propose to ensure all citizens have health care, a roof over their heads, and a warm place to sleep. I think u support a guaranteed minimum income. Is that correct?